sad news, indeed

"Alaskan420" wrote in message
news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780@trndny07...
And please... Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?

Just in case anyone was wondering about the sort of non sequiturs that got
us into this mess in the first place....

"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:

Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?


The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

Scott Seidman wrote:
"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:


Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?



The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

Almost?

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On 27 Jun 2006 12:42:26 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:

Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?


The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

Er, no. The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq (or
anywhere) is directly attributable to Islamic terrorists and no one
else. Period.

Now, if you want to say something along the lines of: "GW is in large
part responsible for the (primary) condition in Iraq that allow Islamic
terrorists to operate in Iraq as freely," there could be a debate. It's
somewhat misleading, albeit technically correct, as he is responsible
for causing the removal of Saddam, which is the (primary) condition that
allows Islamic terrorists to operate as freely. But by taking such a
position, one would tacitly acknowledge that he would be equally
responsible for enabling whatever good might occur.

HTH,
R

wrote in news:gra2a2trn6ldp7ke40fl5klkjhf0f263mb@
4ax.com:

But by taking such a
position, one would tacitly acknowledge that he would be equally
responsible for enabling whatever good might occur.


And then the debate as to whether it could have been done better and with
less loss of life simple by either letting a contained Hussein goverment
wither and die or by actually running an effective war campaign with enough
resources and a real international coalition behind it (as opposed to the
laughable "coalition of the Willing") could start.

At this point, if there's a positive outcome, its almost an accident.


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 27 Jun 2006 14:21:14 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:gra2a2trn6ldp7ke40fl5klkjhf0f263mb@
4ax.com:

But by taking such a
position, one would tacitly acknowledge that he would be equally
responsible for enabling whatever good might occur.


And then the debate as to whether it could have been done better and with
less loss of life simple by either letting a contained Hussein goverment
wither and die or by actually running an effective war campaign with enough
resources and a real international coalition behind it (as opposed to the
laughable "coalition of the Willing") could start.

It could start, I guess, but it wouldn't last long. Everything that's
ever been done by humans "_could_ have been done 'better,'" including
everything you yourself have ever done. OTOH, those things "_could_
have been done 'worse,'" too.

At this point, if there's a positive outcome, its almost an accident.

Well, maybe, but it's unfair to compare lesser countries to the US,
which suddenly and without warning or struggle internal or external,
came into existence as the perfect entity on June 21, 1788...

HTH,
R

wrote in message
...
On 27 Jun 2006 14:21:14 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:gra2a2trn6ldp7ke40fl5klkjhf0f263mb@
4ax.com:

But by taking such a
position, one would tacitly acknowledge that he would be equally
responsible for enabling whatever good might occur.


And then the debate as to whether it could have been done better and with
less loss of life simple by either letting a contained Hussein goverment
wither and die or by actually running an effective war campaign with
enough
resources and a real international coalition behind it (as opposed to the
laughable "coalition of the Willing") could start.

It could start, I guess, but it wouldn't last long. Everything that's
ever been done by humans "_could_ have been done 'better,'" including
everything you yourself have ever done. OTOH, those things "_could_
have been done 'worse,'" too.

At this point, if there's a positive outcome, its almost an accident.

Well, maybe, but it's unfair to compare lesser countries to the US,
which suddenly and without warning or struggle internal or external,
came into existence as the perfect entity on June 21, 1788...

HTH,
R

He shoots....He scores!


Ric

wrote in
:
OTOH, those things "_could_
have been done 'worse,'" too.


In the opinion of many on both sides of the aisle, not a whole hell of a
lot less worse. Somehow, we're arguing about how well each side's plan
is for digging us out of a monstrous ****up without having a discussion
about just how monstrous the ****up is--or whether the ****up needed to
occur at all.

At this point, if there's a positive outcome, its almost an accident.

Well, maybe, but it's unfair to compare lesser countries to the US,
which suddenly and without warning or struggle internal or external,
came into existence as the perfect entity on June 21, 1788...

HTH,
R


I didn't think I was comparing Iraq to the US--I just think the whole
procedure could have gone a hell of alot smoother if the US were ready
for the aftermath of the invasion (you know, the aftermath predicted
fairly exactly by Bush I and his team!), and I believe I might have
expressed my whacked out opinion that there are plenty of financial
incentives to keep the cluster**** going -- so that's a pretty strange
rebuttal.

You do seem to have impressed our Alaskan buddy, though. Do you think I
could impress him too by counting to 22 without the help of a friend?


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On 27 Jun 2006 17:37:34 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in
:
OTOH, those things "_could_
have been done 'worse,'" too.


In the opinion of many on both sides of the aisle, not a whole hell of a
lot less worse. Somehow, we're arguing about how well each side's plan
is for digging us out of a monstrous ****up without having a discussion
about just how monstrous the ****up is--or whether the ****up needed to
occur at all.

At this point, if there's a positive outcome, its almost an accident.

Well, maybe, but it's unfair to compare lesser countries to the US,
which suddenly and without warning or struggle internal or external,
came into existence as the perfect entity on June 21, 1788...

HTH,
R


I didn't think I was comparing Iraq to the US--I just think the whole
procedure could have gone a hell of alot smoother if the US were ready
for the aftermath of the invasion

I don't, in general, disagree with that. If might ask, where do you
call home, and what did you do to help with the aftermath (or in the
alternative, what is your plan and what can you demonstrate to support
your presumable position that your plan is workable and likely to
succeed)?

(you know, the aftermath predicted fairly exactly by Bush I and his team!),
and I believe I might have expressed my whacked out opinion that there
are plenty of financial incentives to keep the cluster**** going -- so that's
a pretty strange rebuttal.

There are always financial incentives to keep any war going...start 'em,
too. What's your point?

You do seem to have impressed our Alaskan buddy, though. Do you think I
could impress him too by counting to 22 without the help of a friend?

First, you misspelled "confuse," and second, I have no idea, but you
could likely impress many by teaching him to do it.

TC,
R

"Scott Seidman" wrote in message
. 1.4...
"Alaskan420" wrote in news:8gHng.9164$U%1.5780
@trndny07:

Do you truly believe Islamic terrorism exists because of
George Bush?


The level of Islamic terrorism that one finds in Iraq today is almost
directly attributable to GW.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply


Nothing like changing the question to suite your answer, eh?



--
Ric Hamel
A misplaced Alaskan lost in ConUS